>> > Gray Ghost wrote: >> >> Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >> >>>If I kill "Victim X" as opposed to "Victim Y," that is random. >> >>>If I kill any victim of a certain characteristic... What's that >> >>>called again? Is it a "serial killer"? >> >>>Go ahead, tell me that we should treat serial killers the same as >> >>>other killers. That *is* your argument, yes? >> >>>You're uncomfortable with aggressors who act out against >> >>>those-of-cerain-traits being called out for what they are. >> >>>Tough.
>> >> Much fury signifying nothing.
>> >> So the person dead from random crime deserves less justice than the >> >> other victims?
>> > As I said earlier, *all* crimes deserve justice.
>> > *All* crimes deserve to be investigated fully.
>> > *All* crimes deserve to be met with appropriate responses.
>> > Your scarecrow of "thought crimes" is merely straw with clothing. >> > We're not dealing with thoughts, rather with defined actions. Yes, >> > there were thoughts behind them. But thoughts are not a crime. Acting >> > on them to the detriment of a person's life, property, liberty, >> > livelihood, etc... That's where the crime comes into play.
>> > I could think of punching you. That is not a crime. Punching you is.
>> > If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's >> > motivation. (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your >> > woman, that's motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but >> > true nonetheless.)
>> > If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of >> > people whom you represent, that's something else entirely.
>> > Even you know that.
>> What I know is that people that attack a sinble person out of hate for a >> class or group are not very bright to begin with. And that "hate crime" >> legislation tends to make martyrs of them to thier inbred compatriots.
>> As has been pointed out already motive is a component of what needs to >> be produced to rpove a person committed a crime. Therefore motive is in >> fact not ignored.
>> Here's a radical concept for you, equal protection. How is it equal if >> one person is held to a higher standing based on thier class or group? A >> black man being assaulted by a racist blockhead is still a human being. >> If the blockhead assaults me, a white person, because he's a blockhead >> and assaults a black person because he's a blockhead and the punishment >> is more severe for the assault on the black person, all other factors >> being the same, how can that possibly be equal protection. He gets 5 >> year for assaulting me and 10 for assaulting the black guy. Ya reckon >> that might not breed a little resentment?
> The simple answer is always best don't you think. You and your black > friend walk into a bar. There is a blockhead in there who is drunk > and when he is drunk he is a mean drunk. So he sees the two of you > sitting there having a good time and decides that he wants to fight > the two of you. So far nothing here indicates that he is acting on > racial animus, he simply is a mean drunk looking for a fight. He > sneaks up behind the two of you and starts to lay into the two of you > with a chair leg. He is arrested and prosecuted. It turns out that > he is the leader of the local KKK klan but there is nothing to > indicate that he selected the two of you based upon any racial > motivation. He does not call your friend a n*gger or call you a > n*ggerlover. And he has attempted to start several other fights that > night with other whites but been restrained from doing so before > anything serious happened. There is no evidence of a hate crime and > no one is going to be prosecuted for one.
> But let us suppose you walked into that bar with your black friend and > this red neck laid into the two of you screaming all sorts of racist > invective, calling you a race traitor and other such racist pecker- > head behaviour directed at the two of you. That my friend is > indicative of a hate crime for that crime he should be and will be > punished harsher than he would be in the first instance.
So we should elevate blockhead #2 to hero status with his buddies by prosecuting for having bad thoughts.
And I've been called niggerlover in the past and was quite prepared to administer justice on my own.
> >> Only a pedophile supporter would stoop this low.
> > Nothing in this law mentions pedophilia or provides protection to > > pedophiles. Only a cowardly liar would stoop so low as to make such a > > claim.
> > The present law expands the definition of a hate crime to include > > sexual orientation or perceived gender. That meaqns it would protect > > someone who is heterosexual and was attacked because the attacker was > > motivated by that victim's perceived heterosexuality. I keep hearing > > nonsense from know-nothings about hate crimes meaning people can be > > prosecuted simply for hating someone for being of a particular class > > defined in the act, eg. a Roman Catholic a woman or a republican. One > > of the most basic core teachings of criminal law is simply expressed > > as "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which in English means > > "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also > > guilty"; hence thought in some fashion is a component to criminal > > liability in this country and has been since the founding fathers > > signed the Declaration of Independence and even before. It makes > > sense does it not? If Joe is standing next to a cliff and Bill > > stumbles into him by accident and Joe falls to his death, we would not > > prosecute Bill for murder. But if Bill went up and deliberately > > pushed Joe over the edge because he believed Joe had been talking > > stink about him, then we would prosecute Bill for murder.
> > Now some may ask, if this is so then why have hate crime acts at all? > > After all if the mens rea [guilty mind] is already a component of the > > crime then it is redundant. However this is an oversimplification of > > the purpose of such laws and the behaviour they are intended to > > punish. If Bill went up and deliberately pushed Joe over the edge > > because he believed Joe had been talking stink about him, then we > > would prosecute Bill for murder. He would be guilty of first or > > second degree murder depending the exact circumstances of the event. > > If Bill decided he was going to kill Joe because he was a Jew or a > > Roman Catholic because Bill hated Jews and Roman Catholics and not > > because he thought Joe was talking stink about Bill, then Bill would > > be guilty of a hate crime on top of the murder. If and this is a > > important issue, if the prosecution could show that was Bill's > > motivation in killing Joe. But Bill could sit here like some of the > > unwashed heathen who troll through the internet chat groups and > > usenet, calling people all manner of foul names based upon their > > religion, sexual orientation, race, color or national origin and it is > > not a crime. Bill can hate all he wishes so long as he does not > > commit an actual physical act based upon that hatred.
> > We as a society have decided to give enhanced penalties for certain > > typo's of criminal behaviour. Victimizing the very young or very old > > is one example. Killing a police officer who is on duty is another. > > We have decided to add to that enhanced criminal penalties for those > > who target another based upon their gender, race, color, religion and > > certain other categories because it is our belief that you cannot go > > around harming people simply because they are white or black or asian, > > Buddhists or Baptists, women or men, gay or straight among other > > categories.
> > You do not have to like white people or blacks etc, in fact you can > > hate them and even say it to their face but you better not harm them > > based upon that hatred or you will pay the price. And that my dear > > friends is a good thing.
> I thought pedophillia was just another sexual preference.
well then you are truly ignorant.
> And you silly rants aside, no black man or homosexual has ever been charged > under a hate crime statue. Ever.
Can you substantiate that claim?
> New concept bucko. It's called equal protection.
On Nov 4, 4:05 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >We as a society have decided to give enhanced penalties for certain > >typo's of criminal behaviour. Victimizing the very young or very old > >is one example. Killing a police officer who is on duty is another. > >We have decided to add to that enhanced criminal penalties for those > >who target another based upon their gender, race, color, religion and > >certain other categories because it is our belief that you cannot go > >around harming people simply because they are white or black or asian, > >Buddhists or Baptists, women or men, gay or straight among other > >categories.
> What about the weak?
define your term. The feeble minded such as yourself are a protected category.
> >You do not have to like white people or blacks etc, in fact you can > >hate them and even say it to their face but you better not harm them > >based upon that hatred or you will pay the price. And that my dear > >friends is a good thing.
> It's the stupidest fucking thing and it doesn't do a bit of good- in > fact, it makes the situation WORSE.
well that is your opinion. Other more reasonable minds feel differently.
> > On Nov 3, 6:14 pm, Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: > >> Gray Ghost wrote: > >> > Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: > >> >>If I kill "Victim X" as opposed to "Victim Y," that is random. > >> >>If I kill any victim of a certain characteristic... What's that called > >> >>again? Is it a "serial killer"? > >> >>Go ahead, tell me that we should treat serial killers the same as > >> >>other killers. That *is* your argument, yes? > >> >>You're uncomfortable with aggressors who act out against > >> >>those-of-cerain-traits being called out for what they are. > >> >>Tough.
> >> > Much fury signifying nothing.
> >> > So the person dead from random crime deserves less justice than the > >> > other victims?
> >> As I said earlier, *all* crimes deserve justice.
> >> *All* crimes deserve to be investigated fully.
> >> *All* crimes deserve to be met with appropriate responses.
> >> Your scarecrow of "thought crimes" is merely straw with clothing. We're > >> not dealing with thoughts, rather with defined actions. Yes, there were > >> thoughts behind them. But thoughts are not a crime. Acting on them to > >> the detriment of a person's life, property, liberty, livelihood, etc... > >> That's where the crime comes into play.
> >> I could think of punching you. That is not a crime. Punching you is.
> >> If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's motivation. > >> (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your woman, that's > >> motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but true nonetheless.)
> >> If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of people > >> whom you represent, that's something else entirely.
> >> Even you know that.
> > So true, the fundamental basis of criminal law taught to any first > > year law student is that for a crime there must be an actus reus > > [guilty act] and a mens rea [guilty mind]. Grey Ghost for example > > could hate all Lithuanians. He could even set up a web page blaming > > Lithuanians for all the ills of the past 60 years. He could announce > > he hates then all and wants them all sent back to Lithuania. That is > > not a crime. But if he goes out anf firebombs a man's house because > > he believes the man is Lithuanian then he is guilty of a crime which > > has enhanced penalties because he chose his victim based upon his > > national origin and wanted to kill him or scare him into returning to > > Lithuania. It really is not rocket science at all despite the best > > attempts of bigots and know-nothings everywhere to paint it to be > > something different from what it truly is.
> Enhanced penalties? Why, my motive will be used to find me guilty of the > underlieing crime. If I'm sentenced to death for the underlieing crime what > else will you do to me, hang me after I'm dead.
Two different issues. Your motive will get you convicted of the crime and it is also indicative of a second offense which then calls for an enhanced penalty. This is not a radical concept at all. For example X may have been motivated to rob a bank and did so, in the course of which he exchanged shots with the police. One of the bullets strikes a passerby and at trial he is convicted of murder as well as robbery. His motive to commit the robbery is introduced to prove his robbery as well as the felony murder rule under which he liable for murder. As for hanging you, that can only be done once. However that has not prevented courts from sentencing the same defendant to death multiple times for different offenses. The Night Stalker is a good example. Ted Bundy would be another.
> New concept, equal protection. If you start punishing people > disporportionately for the same crimes the victims of the crimes receiving > lesser penalties might start to think that ther pain and suffering is soemhow > less than the protected minority. Ya think that might tend to breed > resentment making the situation worse?
I think that a person who has been assaulted is more interested in his assailant being punished, not comparing the types of punishments meted out to others for other offenses.
> Frankly if I ever sit on a jury I would never convict a person of "hate > crime" only whatever the underlieing crime was. Unless of course the offender > was a protected minority, just to spread the pain.
Then you are a prime candidate for being excused from the jury. Congratulations on informing us you have no intention of fulfilling your obligations as a citizen in a fair manner.
On Nov 4, 7:01 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote:
> juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in news:a4137cac-cd12-4ea2-a1e8- > 0a066381b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> > You ignore the purpose of the hate crime legislation which is to give > > an enhanced punishment to the perpetrator of the crime
> Which is crap. It is to silence people, period. I'll expect attacks on > churches that are opposed to homosexuality to start as early as next year.
That is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. It is ignorant and biased but then again that is not unusual. Consider that there are certain religious institutions out there which are regularly subjected to all sorts of vitriol by some individuals. For example, the Roman Catholics and Mormons are regularly excoriated in Chick Publications, those little leaflets found so often in bus station bath rooms [very handy if there is no toilet paper available]. The hate poured out against the Jews by the various White Power and neo-Nazi websites can be breathtaking. But they are not prosecuted criminally for simply saying the their opinions. There are other websites which advocate White Supremacy and strongly oppose racial minorities accusing them of all sorts of evil. Again, no criminal prosecution for saying they hate blacks or latinos or asians. So I seriously doubt that some church is going to be prosecuted for say it is opposed to homosexuality and that homosexuals are going to go to hell based upon some interpretation of scripture.
It is when these types of groups go beyond simply advocating their positions and call for specific violent actions and then act upon them that they get into trouble. It's called free speech and the Supreme Court has made more than one decision concerning it.
> >> > Gray Ghost wrote: > >> >> Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: > >> >>>If I kill "Victim X" as opposed to "Victim Y," that is random. > >> >>>If I kill any victim of a certain characteristic... What's that > >> >>>called again? Is it a "serial killer"? > >> >>>Go ahead, tell me that we should treat serial killers the same as > >> >>>other killers. That *is* your argument, yes? > >> >>>You're uncomfortable with aggressors who act out against > >> >>>those-of-cerain-traits being called out for what they are. > >> >>>Tough.
> >> >> Much fury signifying nothing.
> >> >> So the person dead from random crime deserves less justice than the > >> >> other victims?
> >> > As I said earlier, *all* crimes deserve justice.
> >> > *All* crimes deserve to be investigated fully.
> >> > *All* crimes deserve to be met with appropriate responses.
> >> > Your scarecrow of "thought crimes" is merely straw with clothing. > >> > We're not dealing with thoughts, rather with defined actions. Yes, > >> > there were thoughts behind them. But thoughts are not a crime. Acting > >> > on them to the detriment of a person's life, property, liberty, > >> > livelihood, etc... That's where the crime comes into play.
> >> > I could think of punching you. That is not a crime. Punching you is.
> >> > If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's > >> > motivation. (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your > >> > woman, that's motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but > >> > true nonetheless.)
> >> > If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of > >> > people whom you represent, that's something else entirely.
> >> > Even you know that.
> >> What I know is that people that attack a sinble person out of hate for a > >> class or group are not very bright to begin with. And that "hate crime" > >> legislation tends to make martyrs of them to thier inbred compatriots.
> >> As has been pointed out already motive is a component of what needs to > >> be produced to rpove a person committed a crime. Therefore motive is in > >> fact not ignored.
> >> Here's a radical concept for you, equal protection. How is it equal if > >> one person is held to a higher standing based on thier class or group? A > >> black man being assaulted by a racist blockhead is still a human being. > >> If the blockhead assaults me, a white person, because he's a blockhead > >> and assaults a black person because he's a blockhead and the punishment > >> is more severe for the assault on the black person, all other factors > >> being the same, how can that possibly be equal protection. He gets 5 > >> year for assaulting me and 10 for assaulting the black guy. Ya reckon > >> that might not breed a little resentment?
> > The simple answer is always best don't you think. You and your black > > friend walk into a bar. There is a blockhead in there who is drunk > > and when he is drunk he is a mean drunk. So he sees the two of you > > sitting there having a good time and decides that he wants to fight > > the two of you. So far nothing here indicates that he is acting on > > racial animus, he simply is a mean drunk looking for a fight. He > > sneaks up behind the two of you and starts to lay into the two of you > > with a chair leg. He is arrested and prosecuted. It turns out that > > he is the leader of the local KKK klan but there is nothing to > > indicate that he selected the two of you based upon any racial > > motivation. He does not call your friend a n*gger or call you a > > n*ggerlover. And he has attempted to start several other fights that > > night with other whites but been restrained from doing so before > > anything serious happened. There is no evidence of a hate crime and > > no one is going to be prosecuted for one.
> > But let us suppose you walked into that bar with your black friend and > > this red neck laid into the two of you screaming all sorts of racist > > invective, calling you a race traitor and other such racist pecker- > > head behaviour directed at the two of you. That my friend is > > indicative of a hate crime for that crime he should be and will be > > punished harsher than he would be in the first instance.
> So we should elevate blockhead #2 to hero status with his buddies by > prosecuting for having bad thoughts.
If his friends are so stupid as to approve of his actions in going out assaulting people on the basis of their skin color or the skin color of their friends then they will think him a hero regardless of how he is prosecuted. And he is being prosecuted for the assault, not for having "bad thoughts" as you so lightly put it. But the end result is blockhead #2 gets some extra jail time during which his ass in not on the street committing similar offenses. That is a good thing. And maybe we will get lucky and he will try to assault a black inmate and most probably remove his genes from the pool as a result. Also a good thing.
> And I've been called niggerlover in the past and was quite prepared to > administer justice on my own.
I am so very happy for you. Are you still on probation for assault?
On Nov 4, 7:08 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote:
> juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in news:b94705c8-8075-4559-a3ea- > 057bd73b4...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> > That would be your moral failing.
> Gee and I thought we couldn't legislate morality. I guess we can, if it's the > "right" kind of morality.
Nice of you to edit the response to make it appear different from what it is addressing and then comment on your misdirection. You said:
> I fail to see how one offense is any more or less deserving of punishment > than the other.
And I replied:
That would be your moral failing. We as a society have at different times decided that the motivation of an act or the status of a victim merits a harsher punishment. For example, if you beat up some guy your age ihn a bar, you might get one sentence. Beat up a 75 year old man in the same bar and in many states, you will get a harsher sentence because the elderly are considered as more vulnerable. Rape a 21 year old woman and you will get one sentence. Rape a 13 year old woman or an 80 year old and the sentence will be far harsher in most states. Kill a cop who is acting in the line of duty and in many states, assuming you make it to trial, the punishment is far harsher than if you killed someone else. We as a society have decided you cannot target people for crimes motivated by certain defined factors which include their gender, national origin, religion or race among others. If you do then your punishment will be harsher than if you simply randomly chose someone.
juanjo wrote: > On Nov 3, 8:03 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> > wrote: >> Dionisio wrote: >>> Scout wrote: >>>> Which isn't what he asked you.
>>> He asked why a mitigating factor should be considered.
>>> My position is "Why shouldn't it?"
>> And so far, you have failed to show why a hate crime is different >> than any other crime of the same type.
>> If I punch you because you're black, well that's a hate crime and I >> should be punished more than if I simply punched you because you're >> wearing the wrong color hat.
>> I fail to see how one offense is any more or less deserving of >> punishment than the other.
> That would be your moral failing.
Interesting claim, totally devoid of meaning or objective criteria, but it's a nice way to ignore opposing points.
> We as a society have at different > times decided that the motivation of an act or the status of a victim > merits a harsher punishment.
Well, the status of the victim certainly can, but not necessarily because of objective and rational criteria.
> For example, if you beat up some guy > your age ihn a bar, you might get one sentence. Beat up a 75 year old > man in the same bar and in many states, you will get a harsher > sentence because the elderly are considered as more vulnerable.
So you are suggesting a healthy young black males is as vulnerable as a 75 year old man.
I will simply ask you to support your assertion with cites to the relevent statutes, because I am unaware of any such statutes that make advanced age a criteria in the crime committed.
> Rape > a 21 year old woman and you will get one sentence. Rape a 13 year old > woman or an 80 year old and the sentence will be far harsher in most > states.
Well, rape of a minor is harser but then you are involved with a child that isn't physically, mentally, sexually, or emotionally mature. Thus the harm done is greater.
As far as the 80 year old, I am again going to have to ask to see your cites for such statutes, because I am unaware of any such divisions within the law.
> Kill a cop who is acting in the line of duty and in many > states, assuming you make it to trial, the punishment is far harsher > than if you killed someone else.
Naturally, because cops on duty (and to a lesser extent off duty) are special. Because you aren't just threatening and harming them, but all those who rely upon them to protect them as well. So once again, we see in your example that until this recent hate crime criteria, the reasoning for this difference is supportable by simple reasonable logic.
> We as a society have decided you > cannot target people for crimes motivated by certain defined factors > which include their gender, national origin, religion or race among > others.
Sure, but just because society has decided something doesn't automatically make it right or moral.
To suggest that anything done by society is automatically acceptable is to suggest that you would find the Holocaust, Death Marches, and other acts by society to be acceptable.
Sorry, but simply saying that a bunch of people feel this way is nothing more than a fallacy, specifically the Appeal to Popularity, which suggests that just because an idea is widely held means it's true. So just because society has decided something doesn't make it right, true, or moral.
> If you do then your punishment will be harsher than if you > simply randomly chose someone.
So if I randomly chose someone who is black, that's different than if I randomly chose someone who wears sweaters?
juanjo wrote: > On Nov 3, 6:14 pm, Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >> Gray Ghost wrote: >>> Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >>>> If I kill "Victim X" as opposed to "Victim Y," that is random. >>>> If I kill any victim of a certain characteristic... What's that >>>> called again? Is it a "serial killer"? >>>> Go ahead, tell me that we should treat serial killers the same as >>>> other killers. >>>> That *is* your argument, yes? >>>> You're uncomfortable with aggressors who act out against >>>> those-of-cerain-traits being called out for what they are. >>>> Tough.
>>> Much fury signifying nothing.
>>> So the person dead from random crime deserves less justice than the >>> other victims?
>> As I said earlier, *all* crimes deserve justice.
>> *All* crimes deserve to be investigated fully.
>> *All* crimes deserve to be met with appropriate responses.
>> Your scarecrow of "thought crimes" is merely straw with clothing. >> We're not dealing with thoughts, rather with defined actions. Yes, >> there were thoughts behind them. But thoughts are not a crime. >> Acting on them to the detriment of a person's life, property, >> liberty, livelihood, etc... That's where the crime comes into play.
>> I could think of punching you. That is not a crime. Punching you is.
>> If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's >> motivation. (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your >> woman, that's motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but >> true nonetheless.)
>> If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of >> people whom you represent, that's something else entirely.
>> Even you know that.
> So true, the fundamental basis of criminal law taught to any first > year law student is that for a crime there must be an actus reus > [guilty act] and a mens rea [guilty mind].
Then there are a whole lot of people in jail who shouldn't be there because they never has a mens rea.
> Grey Ghost for example > could hate all Lithuanians. He could even set up a web page blaming > Lithuanians for all the ills of the past 60 years. He could announce > he hates then all and wants them all sent back to Lithuania. That is > not a crime. But if he goes out anf firebombs a man's house because > he believes the man is Lithuanian then he is guilty of a crime which > has enhanced penalties because he chose his victim based upon his > national origin and wanted to kill him or scare him into returning to > Lithuania.
However, if GG were to hate all people who wear red hates, and sets up a web page blaming people who wear red has for all the ills of the past 60 years, that would also be his right. But if he goes out a firebombs a man's house because be believes the man regularly wears a red hat......well that's not deserving of enhanced penalties because wearing a red hat isn't a specially protected class subject to discrimination under the law.
> It really is not rocket science at all despite the best > attempts of bigots and know-nothings everywhere to paint it to be > something different from what it truly is.
Yet, as I noted above the reason for the enhanced penality is inconsistent and further has no logical basis. All you are going is engaging in circular logic by suggesting the reason for the enhanced penalties is because there is a reason for enhanced penalties which justifies the enhanced penalties without ever explaining WHY this should be so, and why a crime of an identical nature involving a different characterist is any less worthy of being a hate crime as on of those involving the characterists you find "special".
>>> On Nov 3, 6:14 pm, Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >>>> Gray Ghost wrote: >>>>> Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >>>>>> If I kill "Victim X" as opposed to "Victim Y," that is random. >>>>>> If I kill any victim of a certain characteristic... What's that >>>>>> called again? Is it a "serial killer"? >>>>>> Go ahead, tell me that we should treat serial killers the same as >>>>>> other killers. That *is* your argument, yes? >>>>>> You're uncomfortable with aggressors who act out against >>>>>> those-of-cerain-traits being called out for what they are. >>>>>> Tough.
>>>>> Much fury signifying nothing.
>>>>> So the person dead from random crime deserves less justice than >>>>> the other victims?
>>>> As I said earlier, *all* crimes deserve justice.
>>>> *All* crimes deserve to be investigated fully.
>>>> *All* crimes deserve to be met with appropriate responses.
>>>> Your scarecrow of "thought crimes" is merely straw with clothing. >>>> We're not dealing with thoughts, rather with defined actions. Yes, >>>> there were thoughts behind them. But thoughts are not a crime. >>>> Acting on them to the detriment of a person's life, property, >>>> liberty, livelihood, etc... That's where the crime comes into play.
>>>> I could think of punching you. That is not a crime. Punching you >>>> is.
>>>> If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's >>>> motivation. (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your >>>> woman, that's motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but >>>> true nonetheless.)
>>>> If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of >>>> people whom you represent, that's something else entirely.
>>>> Even you know that.
>>> So true, the fundamental basis of criminal law taught to any first >>> year law student is that for a crime there must be an actus reus >>> [guilty act] and a mens rea [guilty mind]. Grey Ghost for example >>> could hate all Lithuanians. He could even set up a web page blaming >>> Lithuanians for all the ills of the past 60 years. He could announce >>> he hates then all and wants them all sent back to Lithuania. That is >>> not a crime. But if he goes out anf firebombs a man's house because >>> he believes the man is Lithuanian then he is guilty of a crime which >>> has enhanced penalties because he chose his victim based upon his >>> national origin and wanted to kill him or scare him into returning >>> to Lithuania. It really is not rocket science at all despite the >>> best attempts of bigots and know-nothings everywhere to paint it to >>> be something different from what it truly is.
>> Enhanced penalties? Why, my motive will be used to find me guilty of >> the >> underlieing crime. If I'm sentenced to death for the underlieing >> crime what >> else will you do to me, hang me after I'm dead.
> Two different issues. Your motive will get you convicted of the crime > and it is also indicative of a second offense which then calls for an > enhanced penalty.
Except you have yet to explain WHY this enhanced penalty should even exist.
So far the only reasons you seem to have provided is 'because' or 'they are special'.
Which doesn't address the point he's attempting to make by asking you to define WHY this offense is worthy of enhanced penality.
So tell me, why is it if I murder someone because he's black I deserve greater punishment than if I murder them because they wear a red hat?
My act is the same, my basic drive is the same, the hate is the same, yet one crime is *special* and the other isn't.
So why the enhanced penalty for one crime but not the other?
juanjo wrote: > On Nov 3, 7:08 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> In article <x06Im.118699$Xw3.20...@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com>, >> moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says...
>>> tankfixer wrote: >>>> So how does "hate crime" legislation make anyone safer ?
>>> How do laws against murder make anyone safer?
>> We have those law already, how does making it a "hate crime" help ?
>>> If a perp kills you, you're just as dead. That's not exactly >>> "safe," is it?
>> Nope. >> Is the victim less dead with "hate crime laws" on the books ?
>>> Would you feel safe walking down a dark alley in a "bad" section of >>> town because you know that murder is illegal?
>>> Criminals are criminals because they choose to *not* obey the >>> common niceties, not because they choose to abide by them.
>>> No. Laws do not serve to provide safety. What they serve to do is >>> remove undesirable elements from the mix for a while. (Provided the >>> jury finds sufficient cause for a "guilty" verdict.)
>>> What would you propose? Removing the laws against murder since they >>> don't *prevent* murder?
>>> What do you propose, removing the distinctions between murder, and >>> premeditated murder, since dead is dead?
>>> Come now...
>> You danced all around the question. >> How is making it a "hate crime" change any facts ?
> You ignore the purpose of the hate crime legislation which is to give > an enhanced punishment to the perpetrator of the crime.
No, he's asking you to tell him why there should be an enhanced punishment. So far, you have failed to do so other than by replying with logical fallacies, specifically appeal to popularity and circular reasoning.
tankfixer wrote: > moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says... >>tankfixer wrote: >>>So how does "hate crime" legislation make anyone safer ? >>How do laws against murder make anyone safer?
> We have those law already, how does making it a "hate crime" help ?
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Return terror with terror.
Remember Ronald Reagan and Mutually Assured Destruction? Seems to work...
>>What do you propose, removing the distinctions between murder, and premeditated murder, >>since dead is dead?
>>Come now...
> You danced all around the question. > How is making it a "hate crime" change any facts ?
Speaking of dancing...
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
House sex: When you're newly married and having sex in every room of the house -- trying many and various positions.
Bedroom sex: That period of time after marriage when you have sex just in the bedroom.
Hall sex: When you've been married for many, many years, and you just pass each other in the hall and say "fuck you."
Dionisio wrote: > tankfixer wrote: >> moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says... >>> tankfixer wrote: >>>> So how does "hate crime" legislation make anyone safer ? >>> How do laws against murder make anyone safer?
>> We have those law already, how does making it a "hate crime" help ?
> "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
> Return terror with terror.
> Remember Ronald Reagan and Mutually Assured Destruction? Seems to > work...
So you are suggesting that EVERY crime be treated as a hate crime?
Then what's the point of the "enhanced punishment"?
Why not simply increase the punishment for the existing crime?
tankfixer wrote: > moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says... >>tankfixer wrote: >>>You know when many people are telling you that you are wrong it might be >>>time to listen to them.. >>>Just a suggestion .. >>Provided that they're not utterly divorced from the concept of morality... >>Yes, I'll concede that.
> Thanks for conceding the point in the rest of my post by snipping it > away.
Methinks you don't get it.
When women had "everyone" telling them that they were inferior, some stood up and said FU.
When slaves had "everyone" telling them that they were wrong to believe that the Constitution applied to them, some stood up and... Golly, where is slavery these days?
When the religious folks that founded America had "everyone" in Europe saying they were wrong, they founded a nation that became a superpower.
Just because some folks want to retain the status quo doesn't mean they should be listened to.
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
I went to my doctor earlier today 'cause I was aching all over. He asked me some questions, went off to talk to his nurse for a few minutes, and then came back with his diagnosis. He sat down, looked me in the eyes and said, "There are some positions that the human body isn't meant to have sex in." What a quack!
Gray Ghost wrote: > Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >>As I said earlier, *all* crimes deserve justice. >>*All* crimes deserve to be investigated fully. >>*All* crimes deserve to be met with appropriate responses. >>Your scarecrow of "thought crimes" is merely straw with clothing. We're >>not dealing with thoughts, rather with defined actions. Yes, there were >>thoughts behind them. But thoughts are not a crime. Acting on them to the >>detriment of a person's life, property, liberty, livelihood, etc... >>That's where the crime comes into play. >>I could think of punching you. That is not a crime. Punching you is. >>If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's motivation. >>(And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your woman, that's >>motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but true nonetheless.) >>If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of people >>whom you represent, that's something else entirely. >>Even you know that.
> What I know is that people that attack a sinble person out of hate for a > class or group are not very bright to begin with. And that "hate crime" > legislation tends to make martyrs of them to thier inbred compatriots.
So?
Charles Ponzi, martyr of Wall Street. Just like the folks who brought us the Mortgage Crisis via another house of cards. Exposing idiocy and lunacy isn't a detriment.
We should not fear martyrs, we should fear those who seek them.
We should not fear the inbred, we should fear engaging in inbreeding.
Gads man. Grow a spine.
> As has been pointed out already motive is a component of what needs to be > produced to rpove a person committed a crime. Therefore motive is in fact not > ignored.
Says the fellow who thinks that some motives should be ignored...
Right.
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Gaydar for Straights:
Straight people seem fascinated by gaydar, so here are three steps to developing it. A) Picture your waiter playing baseball. If he throws like a girl, this is an indication. B) Picture the target having sex with a woman. Can't imagine it? Another clue! C) Picture them having sex with Richard Gere or Lukas Ridgeston.
Scout wrote: > Dionisio wrote: >>Scout wrote: >>>How exactly is hate or a lack of hate a "mitigating factor"? >>>Please explain. >>Pardon my "recycling" of a post, but it answers your question: >>If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's >>motivation. (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your >>woman, that's motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but >>true nonetheless.) >>If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of >>people whom you represent, that's something else entirely. >>Even you know that.
> No, no I don't know that.
I'm beginning to think that you really don't.
Of course, I also have the suspicion that you're fibbing.
Well, let's cut to the chase: Civilized people don't engage in terror.
Period.
Champion incivility all you want, I shall not join your cause.
Lament the "persecution" of those who persecute others for trivial reasons. I shall not cry with you.
Ignore civility by seeking to pretend that hateful thugs aren't worthy of being discriminated against. I shall expect it of you.
Scout wrote: > Dionisio wrote: >>Scout wrote: >>>Dionisio wrote: >>>>And you formed that opinion due to what observation? >>>>Could it have been this...? >>>><Historic item> >>>>Scout wrote: >>>>>If homosexuality is to be seen as a normal acceptable sexual >>>>>orientation, then why should/would we want to indicate it is >>>>>abnormal by imposing special laws concerning it? >>>>Ah, that old thing. >>... >>>Which it should be noted has nothing to do with the context of the >>>question being asked of you. >>Ah, a tad snippy 'cause you realized how facile your comment was, eh? >>I change a couple words and suddenly you're all defensive...
> Defensive, hardly. Noting that you are evadomg the issue by the changes in > the words you made.....certainly.
<Chuckle>
I use your own words. I make some simple tweaks. Suddenly you're squawking like a parrot getting plucked.
But you're not defensive... Oh no. Not defensive at all...
Pull the other one.
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
If at first you don't succeed... So much for skydiving!
Scout wrote: > Dionisio wrote: >>Scout wrote: >>>Scout wrote: >>>>No answer yet >>>Still no answer >>Oh, so sorry. Is my having a life interfering with your entertainment >>schedule? >>How dreadful.
> And I note you never did answer.
To the contrary: I've answered you in ways you didn't like.
Alas, I'm not your clone Narcissus.
Deal with it.
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
If you didn't make mistakes, there would be nothing to learn.
juanjo wrote: > So true, the fundamental basis of criminal law taught to any first > year law student is that for a crime there must be an actus reus > [guilty act] and a mens rea [guilty mind]. Grey Ghost for example > could hate all Lithuanians. He could even set up a web page blaming > Lithuanians for all the ills of the past 60 years. He could announce > he hates then all and wants them all sent back to Lithuania. That is > not a crime. But if he goes out anf firebombs a man's house because > he believes the man is Lithuanian then he is guilty of a crime which > has enhanced penalties because he chose his victim based upon his > national origin and wanted to kill him or scare him into returning to > Lithuania. It really is not rocket science at all despite the best > attempts of bigots and know-nothings everywhere to paint it to be > something different from what it truly is.
Thank you.
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"Omnia risus et omnia pulvis et omnia nihil" --the Aletheia Phrikodes
Gray Ghost wrote: > Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >>Gray Ghost wrote: >>>Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >>>>Gray Ghost wrote: >>>>>Based on that and the postings of many of your olk on this newsgroup, >>>>>Conservatives should have special protections, too. >>>>Curiously, they seem to resist being relocated to preserves. >>>>Then again, their extinction seems to be mandated by their "End Times" >>>>philosophy. Apparently, when the last Conservative is dead, Jesus will >>>>return... >>>First of all you bigoted dogshit brained piece of filth that can be >>>considered a hate crime. >>Telling the truth is a hate crime? >>Fascinating.
> No, but spouting typical secular dohma about Christians is.
Oh please. Read Revelations.
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
No kingdom has ever had as many civil wars as the Kingdom of Christ. -- L. de Montesquieu
Gray Ghost wrote: > juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote: >>You ignore the purpose of the hate crime legislation which is to give >>an enhanced punishment to the perpetrator of the crime
> Which is crap. It is to silence people, period. I'll expect attacks on > churches that are opposed to homosexuality to start as early as next year.
Yer a bit late. The Romans beat you to it.
(And to think you call yourself Christian...)
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
There has never been enough religion in the world to make everybody love one another. There has, however, always been just enough to make people hate one another.
Dionisio wrote: > tankfixer wrote: >> moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says... >>> tankfixer wrote: >>>> You know when many people are telling you that you are wrong it >>>> might be time to listen to them.. >>>> Just a suggestion .. >>> Provided that they're not utterly divorced from the concept of >>> morality... Yes, I'll concede that.
>> Thanks for conceding the point in the rest of my post by snipping it >> away.
> Methinks you don't get it.
> When women had "everyone" telling them that they were inferior, some > stood up and said FU. > When slaves had "everyone" telling them that they were wrong to > believe that the Constitution applied to them, some stood up and... Golly, > where is > slavery these days? > When the religious folks that founded America had "everyone" in > Europe saying they were wrong, they founded a nation that became a > superpower. > Just because some folks want to retain the status quo doesn't mean > they should be listened to.
So should we take this as an admission that women, minorities, religious individuals, ect. should not be subject to special treatment under the law, but should be treated exactly the same as anyone else?
Sort of blows a hole in your argument that we need special hate crime laws that treat these people differently than everyone else.
Unless of course, you wish to suggest such people ARE different and we need to treat them differently under the law, but then you are going to be contradicting the very point you're making above.
Dionisio wrote: > Scout wrote: >> Dionisio wrote: >>> Scout wrote: >>>> How exactly is hate or a lack of hate a "mitigating factor"? >>>> Please explain. >>> Pardon my "recycling" of a post, but it answers your question: >>> If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's >>> motivation. (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your >>> woman, that's motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but >>> true nonetheless.) >>> If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of >>> people whom you represent, that's something else entirely. >>> Even you know that.
>> No, no I don't know that.
> I'm beginning to think that you really don't.
Yep, I certainly don't understand how a crime against one person is at all different than a crime against another person simply because of their race, religion, ect.
> Of course, I also have the suspicion that you're fibbing.
> Well, let's cut to the chase: Civilized people don't engage in terror.
> Period.
Fine, except the law under discussion has NOTHING to do about terror. As such this 'poinit' is irrelevent to the issue. If you can show me they are engaged in terrorism, then fine, you would have a case, but to simply suggest we should treat these crimes as terrorism because of who the victim is, that doesn't follow at all.
> Champion incivility all you want, I shall not join your cause.
> Lament the "persecution" of those who persecute others for trivial > reasons. I shall not cry with you.
> Ignore civility by seeking to pretend that hateful thugs aren't > worthy of being discriminated against. I shall expect it of you.
Personally I consider all murder hateful. You seem to feel some murders are less hateful than others. It's your discrimination against identical crimes that leaves me wondering about your morality.
>On Nov 4, 4:05 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> >wrote: >> In talk.politics.guns juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >We as a society have decided to give enhanced penalties for certain >> >typo's of criminal behaviour. Victimizing the very young or very old >> >is one example. Killing a police officer who is on duty is another. >> >We have decided to add to that enhanced criminal penalties for those >> >who target another based upon their gender, race, color, religion and >> >certain other categories because it is our belief that you cannot go >> >around harming people simply because they are white or black or asian, >> >Buddhists or Baptists, women or men, gay or straight among other >> >categories.
>> What about the weak?
>define your term.
1 : lacking strength: as a : deficient in physical vigor : feeble, debilitated
>> >You do not have to like white people or blacks etc, in fact you can >> >hate them and even say it to their face but you better not harm them >> >based upon that hatred or you will pay the price. And that my dear >> >friends is a good thing.
>> It's the stupidest fucking thing and it doesn't do a bit of good- in >> fact, it makes the situation WORSE.
>well that is your opinion.
No, that's fact. All hate crimes do is create special classes of people with special protections. Clearly against the spirit of the Constitution.
|
